Has the 2016 Election Chaos Spoiled the ‘Spoiler’ Theory of Third-Parties?

We are all familiar with the so-called “spoiler” argument against voting third-party: All it takes to win in our electoral system is to have more votes than any other candidate (a plurality), so if there are more than two, a candidate doesn’t need 51% to win. So, if enough people vote Green, for example, than the liberal side is split and the Republicans can end up with the most votes. Or, if enough conservatives vote third-party, the Democrats will end up with the most votes.

Leaving aside, for a moment, the debate between voting one’s conscience or ideals or pragmatically ensuring that the mainstream candidate you like least doesn’t win, in 2016, the math, and the “players” line up very differently than in past years.

In 2000, a small but vocal movement of liberals/progressives backed Nader because they felt Gore and the Democrats weren’t progressive enough. Nader was the best-known and “biggest” of the third-party candidates. There was no comparable dislike for Bush among those usually allied with the Republicans.

Another way of looking at all this might be to say that it’s the “satisfied-with-the-status-quo-or-the-past” voters versus the “change the system” voters. If this is the case, and Trump is appealing mostly to the change people, then increased attention to the third parties would likely result in a more divided “change” vote, leaving Clinton with the plurality.

Click here and here for more about polls that had third parties in the mix and Clinton coming out ahead.